In Kanefsky v. Ford Motor Co. Gen. Ret. Plan, No. 22-cv-2259, 10548 U.S. Dist. 2023 WL 186800 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2023), the court granted a motion to dismiss a pension plan participant’s claim that the plan was equitably estopped from recouping overpaid plan benefits.  Upon termination of his employment, the participant requested and received from the plan a disclosure estimating that his pension would be $6,225.24 per month.  Almost two years after the participant elected to begin collecting his pension at that disclosed amount, the plan informed him that his monthly benefit had been miscalculated, that he was only owed $3,797.46 per month, and that the plan would recoup $53,411.16 in overpaid benefits by reducing his future benefits.  The participant filed suit after his administrative appeal was denied, arguing that the plan should be equitably estopped from reducing his benefit because he relied on the plan’s benefit estimate when he decided to begin collecting his pension benefits.  The district court held that the participant failed to plausibly allege that the plan intended for him to detrimentally rely on the estimate, and that therefore, he could not establish at least one of the elements of an equitable estoppel claim.  The court distinguished Paul v. Detroit Edison Co. & Michigan Consol.  Gas Co.Pension Plan, 642 F. App’x 588 (6th Cir. 2016), in which the Sixth Circuit upheld an equitable estoppel claim because there, the plan actively invited participants to retire early by offering incentives beyond their ordinary pension benefits.  By contrast, the participant in Kanefsky was fully vested and had already ceased employment, and the plan did not reach out to him to encourage early retirement.  Under these circumstances, the court held that the plan had nothing to gain by misrepresenting his pension amount and that the participant had not presented any other allegations that could plausibly be construed as establishing that the plan intended for the participant to act based on the benefit estimate he requested.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Neil V. Shah Neil V. Shah

Neil V. Shah is a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.

He is the lead attorney representing the firm’s Taft-Hartley plan clients in withdrawal liability and delinquent contributions matters.  As part of his practice…

Neil V. Shah is a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.

He is the lead attorney representing the firm’s Taft-Hartley plan clients in withdrawal liability and delinquent contributions matters.  As part of his practice, Neil pursues employers, their owners and officers, and affiliated companies to collect the amounts owed to these plans using a variety of complex legal theories, and has secured several precedential opinions and multi-million-dollar judgments in their favor.  Neil also defends these plans in arbitrations challenging the methods and assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability, which has yielded a number of notable arbitration decisions and court opinions.  Owing to his experience in this area, Neil is a co-editor of the withdrawal liability chapter of the premier employee benefits treatise, Employee Benefits Law, published by Bloomberg, and regularly presents on the topic before practitioners and consultants that work in the area, such as at meetings of the Conference of Consulting Actuaries and the Employee Benefits Section of ABA’s Section of Labor & Employment Law.

In addition to his Taft-Hartley plan experience, Neil has represented several plan sponsors and fiduciaries in ERISA class actions alleging that the plan’s investments or other practices are imprudent, such as excessive fee and stock drop cases.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Neil was an associate at a large regional firm, where he litigated individual and class actions involving challenges to insurer claims adjudication procedures under ERISA, fraud recoveries against healthcare providers, and claims for benefits.

Neil has authored several articles, including those published in the New Jersey Law Journal and Bloomberg National Affairs.  He is also a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog.

Photo of Jesse T. Foley Jesse T. Foley

Jesse T. Foley is a labor associate and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group.

Jesse has a diverse practice advising multiemployer and single-employer clients on all aspects related to the legal compliance and tax qualification of ERISA-covered pension and…

Jesse T. Foley is a labor associate and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group.

Jesse has a diverse practice advising multiemployer and single-employer clients on all aspects related to the legal compliance and tax qualification of ERISA-covered pension and welfare plans, including the treatment of such plans in corporate financings and transactions.

In his multiemployer practice, he represents a number of funds, counseling Boards of Trustees on issues such as healthcare compliance, cybersecurity, government investigations, benefit suspensions, special financial assistance, and withdrawal liability.

In addition, Jesse advises private, public, and not-for-profit employers on all aspects of their non-qualified executive compensation arrangements.  Jesse regularly provides technical and practical advice on the establishment, administration, and continued legal compliance of deferred compensation and supplemental employee retirement plans.  As part of his practice, Jesse routinely negotiates and drafts equity plans and awards, employment agreements, severance agreements, and other compensation arrangements.

Jesse earned his J.D. degree from the University of Southern California, where he was a Senior Editor of the Southern California Law Review.  Jesse also frequently contributes to Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog.